Share on Facebook
Share on Google+
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Some thoughts on the Data Retention Directive
I know a guy and some people who are against implementing the DRD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC) which will enable storing of communication etc.Here's the 'sign on against the DRD page'
http://stoppdld.no/kunnskapsbanken/folkets_horingsuttalelse/
The arguments against it are pretty good, that it violates privacy, treats everyone as a suspect, that it creates false security because criminals can circumvent it and that it opens for massive surveillance in the future.
I see EU member states that have gone above and beyond the DRD, and you have to wonder why. If you think about it, the order of events on copyrighted material being shared and not much being done to compete with it / making a viable alternative is odd. There has been filesharing tools and systems out there for a long time which distribute the bandwidth load of music and other media.
And the argument that it can be used to track terrorists is pretty moot. All you need as a terrorist to circument it is a plan and a watch. What you could stop / discourage is potential cross-border recruitment
Storing surveillance for 6-24 months.. well, for stopping serious crime (abuse, molestation, bodily harm, murder) I'd think that is OK.
Usually the investigators have to deal with things as they are and nature itself (evidence). Here we're defining the "law of internet nature".
Once you get the legal right to surveill someone, you can store pretty much anything you want and keep it running until you get the criminal charged for something, or delete it after a given amount of time if there is no reason to suspect something.
If you get a conviction, that data can the be used together with heuristics, and you have programs running in the system that scan and monitor for other possible offenders.
When you do something criminal I guess the law of chance applies to whether you get caught. Maybe these systems monitoring the flow of randomness in them so that one isn't continually being surveilled.
But, the system. I think a system that monitors everything and uses heuristics (not people) to scan for potential offenders is interesting. And once you get to a level where you are "tagged", a person can come in and get anonymized and relevant data and decide further action. The access control to the monitoring data would have to be superb. Access logs, encryption etc.
Today the scanning function is pretty much cops driving around in cars and civil/uniformed cops going around on spaces. What is a public space on the internet?
Oh well, time for bed. More thoughts later.
[Permalink] [By morphex] [Politics (and judicial matters) (Atom feed)] [24 Mar 00:04 Europe/Oslo]